Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private … vs Union Of India on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12243-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 237 of 2026
M/s Mosh Varaya Infraprojects Private Limited A Company Having Its
Registered Office At Commercial Unit Part E, Block I, Office No. 004, Shri Ram
Business Park, Amaseoni, Raipur 492014, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh Through
Its Director Mr. Sriyans Jain.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Secretary (Coal), Government Of India, A-Wing,
Ministry Of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi
110001.
2 - Coal India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Having Its
Headquarters At Coal Bhawan Premise No. 04 Mar, Plot No. Af-Iii, Action Area-
1a, Newtown, Rajarhat, Kolkata 7000156, West Bengal.
3 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing
Director Having Its Headquarters At Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur
495006, Chhattisgarh.
4 - The General Manager Contract Management Cell, South Eastern Coalfields
Limited, Secl Bhawan, Seepat Road, Bilaspur 495006, Chhattisgarh.
5 - TMC Mineral Resources Private Limited A Company Having Its Office
Situated At Flat No. 705, Vip Height, Vip City, Saddu - Urkura Road, Raipur-
492014, Chhattisgarh. Email- [email protected]
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)
2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shikhar Shrivastava and Mr. Akshat
Agrawal, Advocates
For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor
General
For Respondents(2) No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Pankaj Singh.
For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. B.P.Sharma with Mr. M.L.Sakat and Mr.
Raza Ali, Advocates.
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13/03/2026
1 Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Shikhar Shrivastava and Mr. Akshat Agrawal, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General
for the Union of India/respondent No. 1, Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents No. 2 to 4 as well as Mr. B.P.Sharma, Mr. M.L.Sakat and
Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.
2 By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):
“i. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing and
setting aside the impugned order/technical evaluation (Annexure
P-1) i.e. decision of Respondent No. 3 & 4, rejecting the bid of the
Petitioner; andii. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing
Respondent No. 3 & 4, to reconsider and re-evaluate the technical
bid of the Petitioner in a fair, objective, and reasoned manner,
strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of NIT and
applicable law; and/or
3iii. Pass any other order it may deem fit and proper in the present
circumstances in the interest of justice. .”
3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a
leading infrastructure and real estate Company engaged in infrastructure
development, real estate, mining and logistics business. The
Respondent No. 3 issued an E-Tender Notice bearing NIT No. SECL/
BSP/CMC/eTender/KRB/BAG/Trial-CM/25-26/615 dated 29.04.2025
(for short, “the NIT”) for the work of “Introduction of 01 no. of Newly
Developed Low Height Indigenous Continuous Miner/Similar Equipment
with Continuous Cutting Technology on hiring basis for winning coal
without blasting for depillaring operation for 8 APP @0.48 MTY at
Bagdewa UG Mine of Korba Area of SECL”.
4 On 14.07.2025, the petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender issued
by respondent No. 3 and duly submitted its technical as well as financial
bids on the GeM Portal, in accordance with the prescribed terms and
conditions of the tender. Subsequently, the tendering authority pointed
out certain shortcomings relating to the submission of documents forming
part of the bid, specifically under Clause 7 B(7)(b) and (c) of the NIT.
Upon due consideration of the deficiencies highlighted by the tendering
authority, the petitioner submitted all the requisite documents in
compliance with the tender requirements within the stipulated time, which
was duly taken on record by the tendering authority and recorded in the
Impugned order/Technical Evaluation Summary (Annexure A-1). The
documents submitted by the petitioner included its self-certification in
compliance with Clause 7B(7)(c) vide letter dated 22.11.2025 addressed
to respondent No. 4, stating that the proposed equipment to be deployed
is newly developed and has not been previously deployed at any mine of
Coal India Limited, its subsidiaries, or any other mine in India. The
4
petitioner further submitted a Local Content Certificate dated 22.11.2025
issued by statutory/cost auditor in compliance with Clause 7B(7)(b)
confirming 57.23% of local content in the proposed equipment meeting
the local content requirement for ‘Class-I local supplier’ as prescribed
under Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order, 2017.
The petitioner, vide its letter dated 22.11.2025, also forwarded a
comprehensive and detailed clarification received from the equipment
manufacturer, namely M/s Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India
Pvt. Ltd. (for short, “the OEM”), vide its communication dated
20.11.2025. The said clarification elaborately explained and
substantiated that the proposed equipment is newly developed product,
specifically designed and engineered for the subject tender, and further
reaffirmed that the proposed equipment has not been deployed in any
other mine. Thereafter on 09.01.2026 at 01:50 p.m. the petitioner
received an e-mail from respondent No. 4, enclosing a letter bearing
Ref.No. SECL/BSP/SECL/CMC/KRB/NIT-615/205-26/513, whereby
respondent No. 4 sought an extension of the validity of the petitioner’s bid
for a further period of two (2) months, i.e., up to 10.03.2026, on account
of the ongoing tender evaluation process. The petitioner, vide its letter
bearing Ref. No. MVIPL/SECL/BAG/001/25-26, duly sent through e-mail
on the same day at 04:25 p.m., promptly conveyed its consent to the
extension of its bid validity for the aforesaid period, as requested by the
tendering authority. But to the utter surprise, the petitioner received
another e-mail on the same day i.e. 09.01.2026 at 07:24 p.m., whereby
the bid of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No 4 during the
Technical Evaluation on account of non-fulfilment of the Clause 7B(7) of
the tender document. Furthermore, the Earnest Money Deposit (for short,
the EMD) of the petitioner was also returned immediately on the next day,
without affording any opportunity of hearing.
5
5 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that the rejection of the bid of the petitioner by the
tendering committee is premised on an erroneous, arbitrary, and
fundamentally flawed finding that the proposed equipment is not “newly
developed and had already been deployed in various mines of Coal India
Limited. The tendering committee rejected the bid solely on the basis of
the nomenclature of the proposed equipment, without name and
appreciating or examining the technical specifications and configuration
of the proposed machine, which depicts non-application of mind. Being
aggrieved by the decision of the tendering committee, the petitioner vide
its letter bearing Ref No: MVIPL/SECL/BAG/002/25-26 dated
10.01.2026 preferred a formal and detailed complaint before the
Independent External Monitor (for short, the IEM). In the said complaint,
the, petitioner elaborately highlighted about the erroneous conclusions
and observations drawn by the tendering committee. The petitioner
further clarified that the proposed equipment is an indigenous, newly
developed machine, which is entirely distinct from the earlier imported
variants in terms of its technical specifications, design, and configuration.
Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, a virtual hearing was conducted by
the IEM on 11.01.2026, during which the petitioner duly raised and
elaborated upon its grievances. However, as on date, the final decision of
the IEM remains pending. It is further submitted that, in order to clearly
establish the distinction between the imported and indigenous variants of
the machine, the petitioner sought a detailed technical clarification from
the concerned OEM, with respect to the key differences between the two
variants of the equipment. Pursuant thereto, the OEM vide e-mail dated
14.01.2026 sent a comprehensive technical document expressly
identifying and highlighting the material differences between the earlier
imported MC-350 and the subsequently developed indigenous Indian
6
variant, including differences in configuration, design, and technical
specifications. The comprehensive technical document issued by the
OEM highlighting key differences between the two variants,
unequivocally clarifies and establishes that the proposed equipment,
despite bearing the same name and nomenclature, is a newly developed
indigenous variant, distinct from the earlier MC-350 LHCM (non-Indian
variant). Both the variants differ in terms of configuration, engineering
design, manufacturing origin, and technical specifications. However, the
respondent authorities, without calling for or considering any such
clarification from the petitioner, proceeded to arrive at their erroneous
and pre-mature conclusion, rendering the impugned order arbitrary and
unsustainable. The petitioner has come across publicly available
documents evidencing that the proposed equipment by the technically
qualified bidder, namely M/s TMC Mineral Resources Private Limited, is
part of an existing product line but only with a different name and
nomenclature. The petitioner places reliance upon (i) an intimation dated
19.09.2020 issued by Eimco Elecon (India) Limited to the Bombay Stock
Exchange and National Stock Exchange, whereby the said manufacturer
publicly announced the launch of its Continuous Miner CM 3000 as a
new product in the underground mining sector, and (ii) the official product
brochure issued by Eimco Elecon titled “Continuous Miner CM 3000 / CM
3500, which depicts CM3500 as a variant within the CM3000/CM3500
Continuous Miner family.
6 Mr. Paranjpe further submits that the petitioner, vide its letter bearing
Ref. No. MVIL/SECL/BAG/003/25-26 dated 13.01.2026, addressed to
respondent No. 4, brought to the notice about certain discrepancies with
respect to the proposed equipment model CM-3500 offered by the
technically selected bidder. The petitioner specifically pointed out that the
7
said model had already been deployed as of June 2025 and further
highlighted material discrepancies in the technical parameters and
eligibility requirements, as prescribed under the terms and conditions of
the tender. The petitioner, vide its letter bearing ref. No.
MVIL/SECL/BAG/004/25-26 dated 14.01.2026 addressed to respondent
No. 4 further highlighted material discrepancies in the document
submitted by the technically qualified competing bidder, when compared
with publicly available documents relating to the proposed equipment
CM-3500 specifically pointing out variations in technical specifications.
The petitioner requested a formal review of the said bid in the interest of
fairness, transparency, and equal treatment under the tender process.
7 It is further submitted by Mr. Paranjpe that the impugned order/technical
evaluation summary dated 09.01.2026 rejected the bid of the petitioner
on the alleged ground of non-compliance with Clause 7(B) (7) of the NIT,
which is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the express terms of the
tender. However, from the base perusal of the said clause, it is clear that
Clause 7(B)(7) mandates only three requirements, namely: i) submission
of a list of major equipment, ii) submission of a Local Content Certificate
with UDIN as applicable, and iii) self-certification that the equipment to be
deployed is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of
Coal India Limited, other PSUs or any other mine in India. The said
clause does not prohibit offering of the same or similar model with
indigenous development or modification, which has not been deployed
earlier at any other mine. The respondent No. 4 in its technical evaluation
summary itself recorded that the petitioner duly complied with all
requirements of Clause 7(B)(7) by submitting: (i) a valid Local Content
Certificate dated 22.11.2025 bearing UDIN certifying 57.23% local
content; and (ii) self-certification dated 22.11.2025 by the petitioner
8
affirming that the equipment proposed to be deployed is newly developed
and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, other PSUs
or any other mine in India. Hence, once compliance with all prescribed
confirmatory documents stood admitted on record, rejection of the bid
under Clause 7(B)(7) is wholly unsustainable in law. The respondent No.
4, in its technical evaluation summary also acknowledged that the
petitioner submitted an independent self-certification dated 11.07.2025
issued by the OEM, certifying that the proposed equipment to be
deployed is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of
Coal India Limited, its subsidiaries, other PSUs or any other mine in
India, along with an OEM Local Content Certificate dated 13.06.2025
certifying 57.23% indigenous content. Hence, there lies no reason and
justification for the tendering committee to reject the bid of the petitioner
disregarding such confirmatory documents as prescribed in Clause 7(B)
(7) after having accepted the existence, validity and authenticity of these
documents. The respondent No. 4 has travelled beyond the scope of the
NIT by introducing an impermissible and extraneous disqualification
ground that the “same model” of Low Height Continuous Miner (Sandvik
MC-350) cannot be treated as “newly developed”. The respondent No. 4
has clearly failed to consider that Clause 7(B)(7)(c) does not prohibit
offering of the same model or similar model with indigenous development,
engineering modification or upgraded configuration, nor does it stipulate
that the OEM must not have supplied earlier version of the equipment in
the past. Hence, the disqualification of the petitioner solely on the basis
that an earlier non-indigenous version with different configuration of the
same model had been deployed elsewhere, the tendering committee has
effectively rewritten the eligibility criteria at the technical evaluation stage,
which is impermissible and violative of settled legal principles of tender
jurisprudence. The technical evaluation summary records in detail that
9
the proposed MC-350 Continuous Miner is manufactured in India, has
undergone substantial indigenous design and development investing
2000 engineering hours and meets the prescribed local content
threshold, and that the indigenous configuration proposed by the
petitioner has not been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited or
other PSUs. The technical evaluation committee also recorded that only
a non-indigenous or earlier configuration of the model was deployed
previously, whereas the indigenous model with modified configuration
proposed by the petitioner has not been deployed anywhere in India.
However, despite this, the tendering committee concluded that the
proposed model has already been deployed at various mines of Coal
India Limited. Hence, the impugned order/technical evaluation summary
is perverse and suffers from patent non-application of mind and internal
contradiction by the respondent authorities. The respondent No. 4 failed
to afford any fair or meaningful opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the
issue as to whether the equipment proposed to be deployed is “newly
developed within the meaning of Clause 7(B)(7)(c), particularly where the
proposed equipment bears a similar nomenclature to an earlier non-
indigenous model. The tendering committee proceeded on an erroneous
assumption that the proposed LHCM MC-350 by the petitioner was the
same model and configuration as an earlier non-Indian variant deployed
in mines, without granting the Petitioner any opportunity to explain the
distinction between the indigenous version offered and the earlier non-
indigenous variant.
8 Mr. Paranjpe next submits that the comprehensive technical document
issued by the OEM, M/s Sandvik Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt.
Ltd., clearly highlights that the proposed equipment, though bearing
similar nomenclature, is a newly developed indigenous version of the
10
earlier MC-350 LHCM (non-Indian variant), manufactured in India with
engineering modifications and indigenous configuration, and has not
been deployed at any mine of Coal India Limited, other PSUs or any
other mine in India. Respondent No. 4, without calling for or considering
such clarification, rejected the bid of the petitioner on an assumed
interpretation, in violation of principles of natural justice, fairness and
transparency governing public procurement. Furthermore, the tendering
committee acted arbitrarily and relied upon a generalized ChatGPT (Al-
generated) for interpretation of the term “newly developed”, which has not
been defined in the NIT and reliance on such Al generated definition has
no legal sanctity and cannot override or supplement the tender
conditions. Respondent No. 4 failed to consider that the Clause 7(B)(7)
(c) or expression “newly developed” must not be interpreted in a manner
to defeat the very object and purpose of the tender, which is to promote
indigenous manufacturing and Make-in-India initiatives in the
underground coal mining equipment. It is undisputed that the tender
aims to encourage local manufacturing rather than restrict participation,
and thus the disqualification of the petitioner, who offered newly
developed indigenously manufactured equipment with certified local
content, has resulted in elimination of competition and conversion of the
tender into a single bidder case, which is contrary to public interest,
transparency and fair procurement norms. The respondent No. 4 failed
to apply consistent and legally permissible standards in technical
evaluation by qualifying the bid of a competing bidder, namely M/s TMC
Mineral Resources Private Limited, who proposed EIMCO ELECON
CM3500, without subjecting it to the same rigour as applied to the
petitioner under Clause 7(B)(7) (c) of the NIT. As per publicly available
record, Eimco Elecon Limited had announced the launch of its
Continuous Miner product line (CM3000) as early as 18.09.2020 by way
11
of an intimation to the Bombay Stock Exchange & National Stock
Exchange. Further, Eimco Elecon’s own product literature titled
“Continuous Miner CM 3000/CM 3500” depicts CM 3500 as a variant
within an existing Continuous Miner family. Hence, in such
circumstances, there are reasons to believe that CM3500 was already
deployed as of June 2025; however, no inquiry or verification was
undertaken by the Respondents with respect to the competing bidder,
whereas the petitioner was subjected to rejection solely on account of
same name and nomenclature of the proposed equipment with that of the
earlier imported model, without affording any due opportunity of
clarification, which is discriminatory and in violation of principles of
fairness, non-arbitrariness, equal treatment, and a level playing field
including Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of his
contentions, Mr. Paranjpe relies on the decision of the Apex Court in
Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha & Others {2025
SCC OnLine SC 2368}, Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Another {2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119}.
9 Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the
Union of India/respondent No. 1 submits that the main contesting party in
this petition is the respondents No. 2 to 4 and that respondent No. 1 is a
formal party.
10 Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondents No. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner, who was the bidder
No. 3 in the subject tendering process, offered the model bearing
name/number MC350, which is made by Sandvik Mining and Rock
Technology India Pvt Limited. The petitioner, to fulfill the eligibility
condition as is prescribed in Clause 7.B.(7) of the NIT which stipulates
that the equipment which is being quoted must be ‘newly developed and
12
must not be ‘deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd./other PSUs/any
other mine in India, submitted a declaration/certification on 22.11.2025
and asserted that the equipment being offered by the Company i.e. MC
350 is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of Coal
India Ltd./other PSUs/any other mine in India. In all earnestness, the bid
of the petitioner, as also of other bidders, was placed before and
evaluated by the expert Tender Committee. During evaluation/
verification, it was discovered by the Tender Committee that the Sandvik
make MC-350 model LHCM, has been deployed at Haldibari UG Mine of
JKD Sub Area, Hasdeo Area. That being so, the bid of the petitioner was
squarely in contravention of the mandatory terms of the tender and the
categorical clarification issued thereof, and that being so was rejected on
the technical ground. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the
Independent Expert Monitor on 10.01.2026, which, after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and a detailed analysis of the fact
situation, deemed it appropriate to reject the contention of the petitioner
and uphold the decision of the Tender Committee. Based upon the report
of the Independent Expert Monitor, the respondents duly informed the
petitioner of the outcome of its complaint and proceeded thereafter to
consider the financial bids of the remaining candidates.
11 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner is estopped from
challenging the tender conditions after participating in the process with
full knowledge of the disqualification criteria. The precise issue of
whether an existing model could be quoted was settled during the pre-bid
stage. On 12.07.2025 (prior to the bid submission deadline of
14.07.2025), SECL uploaded Clarification No. CLAR_21909 on the
portal. A specific query was raised if a manufacturer has already
developed and supplied an indigenous Low Height CM in India, can the
13
bidder quote with a new machine of the same model? to which it was
specifically replied in the negative. The petitioner submitted its bid on
14.07.2025, after this clarification was published. As could be gauged,
the petitioner was well aware prior to the submission of his bid that
equipment already deployed would not be eligible under the tender
conditions and the clarifications issued thereon, despite which he took a
calculated risk. Despite having the same opportunity as other
prospective bidders to seek clarification during the pre-bid stage
regarding the acceptability of its offered machine, chose not to attend the
pre-bid proceedings. By submitting the bid, the petitioner accepted the
condition that the “Same Model’ as one already deployed is ineligible.
The petitioner cannot now invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court to challenge a rule they voluntarily accepted. Any such change in
the rules or alteration in interpretation would amount to placing similarly
situated prospective bidders at a disadvantage, particularly those who
chose not to participate, as their machines, though indigenously
manufactured, are already deployed. The petitioner has fundamentally
misconstrued the nature of the subject tender (NIT No. 615 dated
29.04.2025). As explicitly stated in the “Standard Bid Document of Trial
Tender for Engagement of Newly Developed Indigenous Continuous
Miner/Similar Equipment with Continuous Cutting Technology on Hiring
Basis and the Ministry of Coal’s guidelines on “Measures Being Taken
By Govt To Promote indigenous Manufacturing And Self-Reliance In The
Coal Sector”, the present tender process is distinct from regular
procurement. These “Trial Tenders are specifically mandated by the CIL
Board (458th and 470th Meetings) to test equipment without any
provenness in underground mines. The objective is to encourage
innovation by testing new designs as mandated by the Ministry of Coal
(for short, the MoC) as is the cherished goal of the Make in India initiative
14
which is an integral and indispensable part of the Viksit Bharat Vision
2047. The petitioner offered the Sandvik MC350 model. It is an fact
admitted that the Sandvik MC350 model is already deployed and
successfully operating at the Haldibari Underground Mine of SECL. and
other mines. Consequently, this model possesses “provenness” in Indian
conditions. Accepting a “proven” model in a trial tender would violate the
fundamental policy framework intended for unproven, developmental
equipment. The petitioner is attempting to secure entry into a Trial
Tender’ (which has relaxed eligibility criteria intended for nurturing new
technology) using a Proven Machine’. Permitting this would defeat the
purpose of the categorization and result in an unfair advantage. It is also
an attempt to seek relaxations and waivers similar to those granted to
non-proven machines, such as a two-year waiver of penalties etc. The
issue so raised by the petitioner falls squarely within the domain of
executive policy, which has been crafted to meet the ends of
organizational needs and requirements of respondent-CIL (parent body
of SECL) and the SECL. The policy concerned was formulated by the
CIL upon a thorough scrutiny and detailing of its organizational needs
and requirements and that of its subsidiary companies including SECL.
Further, the entire scheme has been floated to implement the larger and
noble vision of the Union of India and the policy decision of the MoC. The
said scheme was crafted in the expert domain of Central Government
and Coal India Limited wherein a holistic approach was adopted with a
view to achieve the end goal i.e. of a self-reliant Vikshit Bharat by the
year 2047. Mr. Bharat further submits that the policy issues of State are
not to be interfered by Hon’ble Courts they being a product of peculiar
needs of the time and occasion. In support of this argument, he relies on
the decision of the Apex Court in Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors.
v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Others, {(2007) 4 SCC 737}, Krishnan
15
Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and others, {(1997) 9 SCC 495},
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn. {(2001) 3 SCC 635}, Satya
Dev Bhagaur v. State of Rajasthan, {2022 LiveLaw (SC) 177}.
12 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner has already availed the
administrative remedy by approaching the Independent External
Monitors (IEMs), a specialized neutral body constituted under the
Integrity Pact. The IEMs (Smt. Archana P. Tewari and Shri Vinayaka Rao
Turaga) conducted a personal hearing on 11.01.2026 during which the
petitioners were heard at length. In their reasoned opinion, the IEMs
examined the records and categorically held that the rejection of the
petitioner’s bid was “consistent with the pre-bid clarification issued by
SECL” and the decision was based on a “model based disqualification
which was clearly communicated. Hence, the rejection did not suffer from
arbitrariness or bias. The contention of the petitioner is that their
proposed machine is “Indigenous” (manufactured in Pune with 57.23%
local content) and therefore should be treated as “New,” distinct from the
imported MC 350 at Haldibari. The Tender Committee is bound by the
specific text of the Tender Document and the pre-bid clarifications. The
clarification explicitly barred the “Same Model”. It did not distinguish
between an “Imported MC 350” and an “Indigenous MC 350. The
definition of “newly developed” in the present tender focuses on the
design/model not having been deployed previously. The very idea of a
newly developed describes something-an idea, product, technology, or
method that has been freshly created and designed and was unknown
hitherto. It signifies a state of being fresh, innovative, and often cutting-
edge, having just passed through its initial stages of creation or
improvement. Since the model MC 350 is deployed, the origin of
manufacturing is irrelevant for this specific eligibility clause. The definition
16
of ‘Newly Developed’ is a technical constraint set by the SECL to ensure
genuine innovation. It is a settled principle of law that the owner of the
project is the best judge of its requirements. Unless the interpretation is
perverse or mala fide, the Hon’ble Courts will not substitute their own
interpretation for that of technical experts. The IEMs (experts) have
already validated the SECL’s interpretation. Mere substitution of
imported components with indigenous components (‘indigenization’)
does not automatically render a machine newly developed for a Trial
Tender. If the ‘model’ remains the same, the core engineering design is
deemed to be unchanged and the Intellectual Property Rights remain
with the parent/foreign company. The petitioner cannot claim the
machine is “same’ for safety approvals (DGMS) but different/new for this
Tender. They cannot blow hot and cold simultaneously. The petitioner
alleges that the Tender Committee acted arbitrarily by relying on
ChatGPT to define “newly developed”. Such an allegation is self-serving.
The primary and legally binding basis for the rejection was the mandatory
condition of the subject tender official pre-bid clarification (CLAR 21909)
and the factual record of the Sandvik MC350’s deployment at Haldibari.
The reference to Al tools was merely a supplementary internal exercise
for general understanding and was not the basis of the administrative
decision. The IEMs examined this specific allegation. They concluded
that since the pre-bid clarification provided an “independent and sufficient
basis for the definition, the reference to Chat GPT was superfluous and
“does not vitiate the decision.” The respondents are fully committed to
the “Make in India” policy. However, the policy to promote indigenous
manufacturing does not imply that the specific technical eligibility criteria
of a Trial Tender should be waived. The “Trial Tender” mechanism is
designed to provide a testing ground for untested technology/
design/model. It is not a mechanism to procure proven technology simply
17
because it is now manufactured locally. The petitioner has levelled a bald
and baseless allegation that the tender was scrutinised in a rushed
manner with the intent of conferring undue benefit upon TMC Mineral
Resources. The said allegation is wholly misconceived, factually
incorrect, and deserves outright rejection. The tender was floated on a
transparent e-procurement portal where all information was equally
accessible to all participating bidders. The date and time for opening of
bids were pre-determined, notified in advance, and uniformly applicable
to all bidders. The technical bids were opened at 7:24 p.m. on
09.01.2026, and the price bids were originally scheduled to be opened
on 10.01.2026 at 2:00 p.m.. During this intervening period, the petitioner
chose to file a complaint. Solely on account of the petitioner’s own
complaint before the IEMs, the opening of the price bids was consciously
deferred by SECL. As per the e-procurement portal, SECL was fully
entitled to open the price bids on 09.01 2026 itself; however, in order to
uphold the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and equal
opportunity, SECL deliberately refrained from doing. The IEMs thereafter
afforded the petitioner an extensive personal hearing of nearly two hours
on 11.01.2026 before rendering their opinion. Upon receipt of the said
opinion, the findings of the IEMs and the consequential decision were
first duly communicated to the petitioner. Only thereafter, and strictly in
accordance with due process, were the price bids opened on
23.01.2026. There exists no provision under the NIT permitting the
petitioner to seek a re-opinion, review, or clarification of the IEMs
findings. The allegation of undue haste is therefore demonstrably false
and is nothing but a calculated attempt to derail and stall a transparent
tender process that has been ongoing since April 2024. A bare glance at
the flow of events as detailed in paragraph 29 of the return filed, would
demonstrate that the respondents have conducted themselves with
18
utmost professionalism and integrity and at no point in time, the conduct
of the answering respondents could be said to be vitiated by malice or
foul play.
13 Mr. Bharat further submits that the petitioner’s allegation of disparity in
treatment vis-à-vis M/s TMC Mineral Resources, on the premise that the
equipment offered by the said bidder is not deployed, is wholly
misconceived and factually incorrect. In order to ensure complete
transparency and a level playing field, and pursuant to the advice of the
IEM in its report dated 11.01 2026, the respondent-SECL undertook a
thorough investigation and verification into the equipment offered by the
technically qualified bidder to ascertain compliance with the newly
evolved criterion clarified during the pre-bid stage. Upon such
investigation, it was conclusively established that the equipment, namely
CM-3500 manufactured by Eimco Elecon, has not been deployed in any
underground mine. In furtherance thereof, SECL sought independent
confirmation from the Area General Manager, Pootkee Balihari Area,
Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Jarkhand, vide letter dated 12.01.2026,
which was unequivocally responded to vide letter dated 13.01.2026.
14 Mr. Bharat next submits that the law with respect to interference in tender
matters is limited to certain extent as has been considered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in large number of cases including in the case of Tata
Motors Limited vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (BEST) {2023 SCC OnLine SC 671}, Banshidhar
Construction Pvt. Ltd. v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd & Others, (Civil
Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024). The Apex Court has
held in categorical terms that the Hon’ble Courts ought to abstain from
issuing directions which would be impregnated with financial
implications. In support thereof, he places reliance on the decision of the
19
Apex Court in State of Kerala & Another v. Naveena Prabhu &
Others {(2009) 3 SCC 649}. Lastly, he prays that that this petition being
devoid of merit, be dismissed.
15 Mr. B.P.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in
addition to what has been submitted by Mr. Bharat, submits that the
prsent writ petition is grossly misconceived and does not lie and further in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for
any relief as claimed. The petition has been filed by the Company
claiming violation of fundamental and constitutional rights. In this regard
it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that a juristic person ie a
company which comes within the purview of artificial person has filed
present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court and cannot claim as a
citizen any right whatsoever much less fundamental or constitutional
rights and in this view of the matter, the petition as framed is not
maintainable under the law as for invocation of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India a writ petition is only maintainable for
enforcement of any of rights conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution of
India which is guaranteed to a citizen of India and artificial person cannot
claim fundamental rights available to citizens of India. In support thereof,
Mr. Sharma places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Shree
Sidhbali Steels Ltd. V. State of UP & Others, {(2011) 3 SCC 193}.
The MoC has mandated four numbers of recommendations put forth
Make in India initiatives, by committees implemented by CIL, Govt. of on
India out of which the relevant 2 recommendations applicable to the
subject tender are (i) Provenness criteria relaxations for Indigenously
manufacturing the same model being operated worldwide, to promote
manufacturing in India of those models of equipment which are being
operated worldwide -floating of Tenders with relaxation in Provenness
20
criteria only, and (ii) “Separate trial tenders for hiring newly developed
indigenous Mass Production Technology (MPT) equipment without
Provenness in UG Mines with relaxation in clauses, to promote
innovation & new technology in India, floating of separate Trial tenders
for newly developed technology & also manufactured in India equipment
Without provenenness requirement and with relaxation in terms and
conditions. Based on such policy and measures being taken up by MoC,
Govt. of India, the CIL directed its subsidiaries to float tenders based on
the above said two nos of recommendations. The subsidiary SECL,
based on the above said second recommendation floated the NIT on
29.04.2025. This tender was a trial tender (as specified in the
recommendation of the PIB (Annexure R-5/1) and accordingly specified
also in the name of the NIT as SECL/ BSP/ CMS/ eTender/
KRB/BAG/Trial-CM/25-26/615) to promote innovation of new technology
in India as well as its manufacturing in India and therefore called for a
newly developed indigenous Continuous Miner package equipment The
definition of the word “Newly Developed was clearly spelt in the NIT
document (Annexure P/3) to the writ petition and also during the Pre-bid
meeting held on 12.07.2025, with the prospective bidders, the minutes of
which was recorded and uploaded in the tender portal for information to
all the prospective bidders, prior to the bid submission due date. The
entire petition revolves around the term of the tender i.e. “Newly
Developed indigenous continuous miner similar equipment”. The
definition of the word “Newly Developed” as spelt out by SECL is that the
one which is newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine of
Coal India Ltd /other PSUs/ any other mine in India. The aforesaid is
essential term of the tender condition of e-tender notice dated 29.7.2025
It would be beneficial to quote the description of the work which reads as
under:
21
‘Introduction of 01 Nos. of newly developed low height
indigenous continuous miner / similar equipment with the
continuous cutting technology on hiring basis for winning coal
without blasting for depillaring operations for eight APP 0.48
MTY at Bagdeva UG mine of Korba area of SECL inclusive of-
(1) Scientific study for obtaining DGMS permission for the
introduction of 1 (one) Set of Low Height Indigenous
continuous Miner (LHCM) Package in the above mine and
strata monitoring as required by DGMS.
(II) Support the roof suitable in accordance with approved
SCAMP (Strata Control and Monitoring Plan) under Coal Mines
Regulation 2017…”
16 Mr. Sharma submits that it is clear that for qualification for performing the
tender work in question, the petitioner has to fulfill the eligibility criteria
which has been provided in clause 6 of e-tender notice, which reads as
under:
“6. Eligibility Criteria with respect to Technical Capability of
tender for Continuous Miner –
6.1 The bidders shall be a private, public or government owned
legal entity or a combination of themA. The Bidder must be an indigenous manufacturer of
Continuous Miner / Similar equipment under Class I Local
Supplier as per Order Dt. 16.09.2020 issued by Ministry of
Commerce & Industry on Public Procurement (Preference to
Make in India)OR
B. The bidder must have a legally binding agreement with an
indigenous manufacturer of Continuous Miner / Similar
equipment under Class-1 Local Supplier as per Order Dt. 16.09
2020 issued by Ministry of Commerce & Industry on Public
Procurement (Preference to Make in India) or his authorized
22agent / dealer (provided the such authorized agent/dealer has
such delegation of power on behalf of the Manufacturer to do
so) and the agreement must clearly confirm that the bidder
would have all the supports and services from the said
organization or his authorized agent/ dealer upto the period/
tenure of the contract and same or similar equipment
manufactured by the indigenous manufacturer should be
proposed for deploymentOR
C. The bidder must have produced at least 0.384 (80% of
desired annual capacity) million tonne of coal from
underground mines in any one production (consecutive 365
days) using Continuous Miner / Similar Equipment with
Continuous Cutting Technology during last 7 (Seven) years
ending last day of month previous to the one in which bid
applications are invited.
The bidder will deploy only newly developed indigenous
Equipment manufactured by any Class-1 Local Supplier as per
Order D1.16 09.2020 issued by Ministry of Commerce &
Industry on Public Procurement (Preference to Make in
India)…”
17 It is submitted by Mr. Sharma that from perusal of above clauses of the
tender notice which are indispensable clauses and well defined in
eligibility criteria, if the authorities reach into conclusion after evaluating
the bid submitted by petitioner being Bidder No.3, in the following
manner, it cannot be said that decision of the respondent SECL
authorities is not lawful within its meaning under the law. The lawfulness
of a decision can be questioned on very limited grounds and soundness
of decision cannot be questioned otherwise the Courts would be taking
over the function of tender issuing authority which it cannot. In support of
this contention, he places reliance on the decision of this Court in
Singhania Furniture Manufacturing Business Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
23
Chhattisgarh & Others {WPC No. 382/2026, decided on 30.01.2026}.
The Ministry of Coal (MoC) in categorical terms has said in its post that it
is committed to advancing the Make in India agenda in coal mining
sector in line with the Government’s vision of Atmnirbhar Bharat,
recognizing the manufacturing indigenous manufacturing and self-
reliance, the MoC has been collaborating with the stakeholders to
implement policies and initiatives that fosters domestic production into
innovation. Further, in collaboration with Coal India Limited (CIL), the
MoC has initiated several measures to promote new technology
development and indigenous manufacturing and support local suppliers
and for that purpose, domestic manufacturers are being given
opportunity to showcase their capabilities through trial orders at CIL and
contribute to the development of coal mining sector Further, under the
measures of the Government of India, the Government has mandated
preferential purchase policy ‘Make in India’ guidelines issued by the
Department of Promotion of Industries and Internal Trade in all tenders.
The said policy grants preference to Class I local suppliers, further
incentivizing domestic manufacturing and promoting self-reliance in coal
mining sector. Thus, it is clear that the respondent authorities keeping in
mind said objective has issued the tender in question with particular
terms i.e. ‘Newly developed low height indigenous continuous miner /
similar equipment, and the petitioner has failed to achieve the said
criteria and in this regard when the respondent concerned has reached
to the conclusion after considering bid of the petitioner, by holding that
“in view of the above, TC (Tender Committee) opines that bidder does
not satisfy the requirement of NIT under sub-head of confirmative
document and further opined that the bidder ie petitioner, does not meet
the requirement of eligibility criteria of Clause No 7.b (7) of NIT under
the sub-head of confirmative document i.e. equipment, hence, not to be
24
considered for opening of price bid”, cannot be faulted with in the facts
and circumstances of the case.
18 Mr. Sharma further submits that the eligibility under Clause 7(B)(7) of the
NIT is objective, verifiable, and strictly tender-bound, and is not
dependent upon post-bid explanations, opinions, or manufacturer
clarifications. The said clause expressly mandates deployment of “newly
developed indigenous equipment which has not been deployed at any
mine of Coal India Ltd, other PSUs, or any other mine in India”. The
condition is inherently binary and allows for no discretion once prior
deployment has been established. Pursuant to bid submission, the
Technical Evaluation Committee, comprising experts, subject-matter
undertook verification of the equipment details furnished by the
Petitioner, including the model designation deployment history, and
operational records available with SECL. Upon such verification, the
Committee found that the Sandvik MC-350 Continuous Miner model had
been previously deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine of SECL, prior
to issuance of the subject NIT and the equipment quoted by the
Petitioner in the present tender was of the same MC-350 model, as
declared in the technical bid documents, notwithstanding claims of
indigenous manufacture or incremental design changes. A machine or
equipment package of the same model already deployed in India cannot
be considered newly developed, even if it is newly manufactured,
indigenously assembled, or supplied as a fresh unit Any supplementary
and cosmetic changes in the same model can not be considered as a
new model but may be a variant of the same model. Here the original
model of Sandvik Continuous Miner is MC 350 Any additions or
alterations as proposed by the OEM in the existing MC 350 model and
the engineering hours spent for this additions or alterations can not lead
25
to the conclusion that the machine is a newly developed model Rather it
is a variant of the existing model. There may be a number of variants to
the existing model of MC 350 depending on the supplementary additions
of alterations as per subsequent requirements and those variants
developed can not be considered as new models.
19 In light of the above factual position and the binding any post-bid pre-bid
clarification, communication from the OEM claiming that the equipment
was “newly developed” or “specifically engineered for the subject tender”
was irrelevant for the purposes of eligibility determination, as acceptance
of such post-bid assertions would amount to relaxation or modification of
essential eligibility conditions after bid submission Any such changes in
the eligibility criteria would amount to placing similarly situated
prospective bidders at a disadvantage position for those who chose not
to participate as their equipment models though indigenously
manufactured but already deployed and operating in other mines. This is
impermissible in law and contrary to settled principles governing public
procurement. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submits that in the light of
submissions made herein above, the petitioner is not entitled for any
relief and this petition deserves to be dismissed in light of the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Another {(2016) 16 SCC 818},
Director of Education & Others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. &
Others {(2004) 4 SCC 19}, Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India & Another {(2020) 16 SCC 489}, Galaxy Transport
Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports & Suppliers v. New
J.K.Roadways, Fleet Owers and Transport Contractors and
Others {(2021) 16 SCC 808}, Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys
Telecom & Others {(2022) SCC 362}, Balaji Venturs Pvt. Ltd. v.
26
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. & Another
{(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1967}.
20 Mr. Paranjpe, placing reliance on the rejoinder filed, submits that the
LHCM equipment deployed at Haldibari UG Mine is MC-350 (Imported
variant) from Austria whereas the LHCM equipment proposed by the
petitioner for the present tender is MC-350 (Indian Variant) having
57.23% local content, rolled out in October 2025 for the first time.
Additionally, both the petitioner and its OEM partner furnished their self
certification as per clause 7(b)(7) confirming that the proposed LHCM is
‘newly developed and has not been deployed at any mine in India”. He
further submits that by submitting the requisite documents, the petitioner
has unequivocally satisfied the prescribed eligibility requirements. The
Expert Committee of respondents No. 2 to 4 in its decision dated
11.01.2026 have made an observation in favour of the petitioner. The
respondent/SECL has arbitrarily interpreted PIC notification dated
15.03.2024 and letter dated 24.10.2024 as the primary objective and
intent of these guidelines is to promote indegenous manufacturing and
self reliance in the coal sector and to encourage equipment
manufacturers to set up their manufacturing facilities within India.
Further, the equipment proposed by the respondent No.5 i.e. CM-3500 is
not ‘newly developed’ as per the interpretation of respondents No. 2 to 4
as applied in the case of petitioner’s proposed equipment.
21 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length
and have also perused the material available on record.
22 This matter came up for hearing on 20.01.2026 when Mr. Pankaj Singh,
learned counsel representing the respondents No. 2 to 4 submitted that
the grievance of the petitioner may be placed before the Independent
27
Expert Monitor for consideration who may consider the same within a
period of one week. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on
27.01.2026. On the said date, Mr. Singh submitted that the complaint of
the petitioner was considered by the Independent Expert Monitor but
found no substance in the same and as such, his bids were not opened
and the TMC Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd. was declared as L-1. As such,
the said firm was directed to be impleaded as party respondent No. 5
and the respondents were directed to proceed with the tender in question
and no work order be issued to any party and the matter was directed to
be listed on 05.02.2026. On the said date, two week’s time was sought
for by the petitioner for filing rejoinder and the matter is heard finally
today.
23 The principal grievance of the petitioner is directed against the technical
evaluation summary dated 09.01.2026 whereby the bid submitted by the
petitioner in response to the NIT dated 29.04.2025 was rejected at the
technical stage on the ground that the equipment proposed by the
petitioner did not satisfy the requirement contained in Clause 7(B)(7) of
the NIT.
24 From the pleadings of the parties and the submissions advanced by
learned counsel appearing for them, the controversy essentially revolves
around the interpretation and application of the condition contained in
Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT, which requires that the equipment proposed to
be deployed must be “newly developed and must not have been
deployed at any mine of Coal India Ltd./other PSUs/any other mine in
India.” The materials on record would reveal that the petitioner had
offered the model MC-350 Continuous Miner manufactured by Sandvik
Mining and Rock Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and submitted the requisite
confirmatory documents including a self-certification and Local Content
28
Certificate indicating 57.23% local content. However, during the process
of technical evaluation, the Tender Committee found that the said model
MC-350 had already been deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine of
SECL and other mines. In view of the said factual position, the Tender
Committee opined that the equipment offered by the petitioner did not
satisfy the essential requirement of the NIT that the equipment should be
newly developed and must not have been deployed at any mine in India.
Consequently, the bid submitted by the petitioner was rejected at the
stage of technical evaluation.
25 It is the contention of the petitioner that although the model number MC-
350 may be the same, the equipment proposed by the petitioner is an
indigenously developed variant with substantial local content and
therefore should be treated as a newly developed equipment within the
meaning of Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT. The respondents, on the other
hand, have contended that the relevant condition of the NIT focuses on
the model of the equipment and once the model MC-350 is already
deployed in mines in India, any variant of the same model cannot be
treated as newly developed for the purpose of the present trial tender.
26 It is also brought on record that prior to submission of bids, a pre-bid
clarification dated 12.07.2025 was uploaded on the tender portal in
response to a specific query as to whether a bidder could quote a new
machine of the same model if such model had already been developed
and supplied in India. The tendering authority categorically clarified that
the same model would not be permissible under the tender conditions.
Admittedly, the petitioner submitted its bid on 14.07.2025 after the
aforesaid clarification had already been published on the tender portal.
Once the petitioner participated in the tender process with full knowledge
of the tender conditions and the pre-bid clarification, it cannot
29
subsequently turn around and challenge the interpretation adopted by the
tendering authority. A bidder who participates in a tender process with
full knowledge of the conditions governing the tender cannot thereafter
be permitted to question those conditions or their interpretation after
being declared unsuccessful.
27 Apart from the above, it is also significant that the petitioner had
approached the Independent External Monitors (IEMs) by filing a
complaint against the rejection of its bid. The IEMs afforded an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter examined the entire
matter. In their opinion dated 11.01.2026 (Annexure R-1), the IEMs found
that the decision of the Tender Committee rejecting the bid of the
petitioner was consistent with the tender conditions and the pre-bid
clarification issued by the respondent authorities. Thus, the decision of
the Tender Committee has been independently examined by the IEMs,
who have also upheld the interpretation adopted by the respondents.
28 It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to
award of contracts and evaluation of bids is extremely limited. The Court
does not sit as an appellate authority over the decisions taken by the
tendering authority, particularly when such decisions are based upon
technical evaluation carried out by an expert committee. The authority
which has floated the tender is the best judge of its requirements and is
also best equipped to appreciate the technical specifications, operational
requirements, and the feasibility of the equipment or services sought to
be procured. The process of technical evaluation often involves
assessment of specialized and technical parameters which fall squarely
within the domain of subject-matter experts. In such circumstances, the
Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot
assume the role of a technical expert so as to substitute its own views for
30
that of the tendering authority.
29 In the present case, the Tender Committee constituted by the respondent
authorities comprised technical experts who were entrusted with the task
of evaluating whether the equipment offered by the bidders satisfied the
conditions stipulated in the NIT. The Committee, upon verification of the
material available on record, came to the conclusion that the equipment
offered by the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of being a “newly
developed” model within the meaning of Clause 7(B)(7) of the NIT. Such
a determination necessarily involves technical appreciation of the model,
its deployment history, and its conformity with the tender conditions. This
Court cannot undertake a roving enquiry into such technical aspects or
re-evaluate the decision of the expert committee merely because another
interpretation is possible. In the present case, the interpretation placed
by the respondents on the expression “newly developed” is based upon
the specific tender condition as well as the pre-bid clarification which
clearly stipulated that equipment of the same model already deployed in
mines would not be eligible for the trial tender.
30 The purpose of the present tender, as is evident from the NIT and the
policy documents placed on record, was to encourage trial deployment of
newly developed indigenous technology which has not yet been deployed
in underground coal mines in India. The respondents have taken a
conscious policy decision to test unproven or developmental equipment
through such trial tenders. If equipment of a model which has already
been deployed and proven in Indian mining conditions is permitted to
participate in such trial tenders, the very object of the policy would stand
defeated. Unless the interpretation adopted by the tendering authority is
shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or intended to favour a particular bidder,
the Court would not interfere with the decision taken by the experts. In
31
the present case, the interpretation placed by the respondents upon the
tender condition is not shown to be perverse or actuated by mala fides.
On the contrary, the same is consistent with the clarification issued prior
to submission of bids and has also been affirmed by the Independent
External Monitors. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it
would be wholly inappropriate to sit in judgment over the technical
assessment carried out by the Tender Committee or to substitute the
Court’s understanding for that of the experts who are entrusted with the
responsibility of evaluating such bids.
31 The contention of the petitioner that the proposed equipment is an
indigenously manufactured variant of the earlier model and therefore
should be treated as newly developed cannot be accepted in view of the
categorical clarification issued by the tendering authority that the same
model cannot be quoted even if manufactured subsequently. The further
allegation that the respondents relied upon an AI-generated definition of
the term “newly developed” also does not advance the case of the
petitioner. The material on record would reveal that the rejection of the
petitioner’s bid was primarily based on the tender conditions, the pre-bid
clarification and the factual finding that the model MC-350 had already
been deployed at Haldibari Underground Mine. Any reference to AI tools,
if at all, was only ancillary and does not form the basis of the decision.
Further, the allegation of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis the technically
qualified bidder i.e. the respondent No. 5 is also without substance. In
view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any arbitrariness,
mala fides or irrationality in the decision of the Tender Committee
rejecting the bid of the petitioner.
32 In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the owner or the employer of a project having authored the
32
tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents.
33 In N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain {(2022) 6 SCC 127}, the
Apex Court has observed as under:
“22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender
condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such
authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while
evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the
tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers
were found to be unresponsive i.e., not satisfying the tender
conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the
case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical
Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous
considerations or was malafide. Therefore, on the same set of
facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona-fide
manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view
of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of
the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for
interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder.
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the Writ Court
should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid
of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to
examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic
activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view.
Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with
contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement
of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues.
The approach of the Court should be not to find fault with
magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine
as to whether the decision-making process is after complying
with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If
the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the tender
has been granted in a malafide manner, still the Court should
refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but instead
relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful
exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract.
The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional
costs on the State and is also against public interest.
Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by
paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the
infrastructure for which the present-day Governments are
expected to work.”
34 The Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024,
decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various
other celebrated judgments, observed as under:
33
“21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition
propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by
the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the
Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award
of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the
decision was made; and that the Government and its
instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the
contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of
the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from
arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated
by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are
expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even
while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under
Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to
ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown
during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process
is carried out in absolutely transparent manner.
22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established
tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in
Government Contracts.
23. In Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N
Publications Limited and Others1, this Court while dealing
with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: –
“18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in
respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State,
the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has
been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In
this connection reference may be made to the case of
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans
[(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a)“The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure
that the authority, after according fair treatment,
reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined
by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is
correct in the eyes of the court.”
By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the
details of the terms of the contract which have been
entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts
have inherent limitations on the scope of any such
enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House
of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the
North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the
courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making
1 (1993) 1 SCC 445
34
process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India 2, this Court had laid
down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative
action.
“94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely
reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative
decision is permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may
be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to
judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the
realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to
accept the tender or award the contract is reached by
process of negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by
experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In
other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an
administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.
However, the decision must not only be tested by the
application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness
(including its other facts pointed out above) but must be
free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by
mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we
will examine the facts of this case since they commend to
us as the correct principles.”
25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and
Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India
Limited and Others3, as under: –
“53. From the above, it is clear that when an
instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good
2 (1994) 6 SCC 651
3 (2004) 3 SCC 553
35and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in
its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it
really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found
in Article 14 of the Constitution.”
26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others 4, this
Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests
to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters.
They are: –
“22. (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made
by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour
someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision
made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say:
“the decision is such that no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could
have reached;”
(ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are
in the negative, there should be no interference under
Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of
penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or
distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops,
grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a
different footing as they may require a higher degree of
fairness in action.”
27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others5,
while observing that the government contracts granted by the
government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of
law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed
in Para 50 as under: –
“50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in
government contracts, if granted by the government
bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule
of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to
equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India
abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is
favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional
requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional
guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution
of India demands the State to act in a fair and
reasonable manner unless public interest demands
otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise
of any private legitimate interest must correspond
proportionately to the public interest.”
28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for
the Respondents relying upon the observations made in
4 (2007) 14 SCC 517
5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574
36
Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) and Others6, that whether a
term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the
employer which should be respected. However, in the said
judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised
the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such
deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and
potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:-
“47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the
acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be
looked at not only from the point of view of the
unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the
employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India,
(1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as
being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a
meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out
in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6
SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering
with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of
the decision taken by the employer ought not to be
questioned but the decision-making process can certainly
be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the
decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide
or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no
responsible authority acting reasonably and in
accordance with relevant law could have reached” as
held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber
[Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka,
(2012) 8 SCC 216].
48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is
a decision taken by the employer which should be
respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has
the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the
deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential
bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana
Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India,
(1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the
employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision
should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can
be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in
the various decisions discussed above, but the
soundness of the decision cannot be questioned,
otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of
the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.”
6 (2016) 8 SCC 622
37
35 The decision impugned in the present writ petition is based upon
technical evaluation carried out by an expert body and is consistent with
the tender conditions and the clarifications issued prior to submission of
bids. Interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction would
amount to substituting the Court’s view for that of the tendering authority,
which is impermissible in law. Consequently, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case
warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
36 Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is
hereby dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
37 No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
Digitally
signed by
AMIT
AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2026.03.16
18:25:56
+0530
38
Head Note
The owner/employer of a project, being the author of the tender documents, is
best placed to understand the requirements of the project and to interpret the
terms and conditions contained therein. In matters relating to interpretation of
tender conditions and evaluation of bids, Courts ought to exercise restraint and
should not substitute their own interpretation in place of that adopted by the
owner/employer, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide,
or in violation of statutory provisions.